M/S. RAS UNISEX SALOONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. HAMJAS SHAJAHAN vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INTELLIGENCE), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
M/S. RAS UNISEX SALOONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. HAMJAS SHAJAHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INTELLIGENCE), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN, SMT.VYDEHI P., SMT. SNEHA MARIYA JAMES, SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN, SMT.ASWATHI MENON C., SHRI.NAVEEN D. PALAKAL
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC

Table of Content
1. challenge to composite notices for multiple assessment years. (Para 1)
2. court's reasoning on the necessity for separate notices. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 consolidated Show Cause Notice which was issued by the 1^st respondent for multiple financial years namely, 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 and Ext.P6 order-in-original passed by the 1^st respondent. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice and order for multiple assessment years was found to be not legally sustainable as per the decision rendered by this Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [ 2025 KHC OnLine 149 ] and Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [ 2025 KHC OnLine 467 ].

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find merits in the said submission, in view of the fact that, such a finding was indeed entered into by the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions referred to above.

In such circumstances, in the light principles laid down

Click Here to Read the rest of this document